RE: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC

["John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

1. Who pays for it and out of what budget? If LegalXML, it must come
from the Steering Committee, and I am afraid that well may be dry for
eNotary at this point, given the allotments for this year.
2. LegalXML branding has been an issue that has spanned committees, and
I think this would again be a Steering Committee issue, and not one only
for the TC.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC
> From: Arshad Noor <arshad.noor@strongauth.com>
> Date: Fri, August 01, 2008 9:34 am
> To: legalxml-enotary <legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Cc: laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org,  James Bryce Clark
> <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>,  Carol Geyer <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>
> 
> 
> Gentlemen (and Carol),
> 
> Thinking about the eNotary specification that we plan to put
> out this year for electronically notarized documents, and after
> some discussions with people on this topic, I believe there are
> two important items of work that this TC must contemplate
> producing along with the XML Schema Definition (XSD) standard.
> These are:
> 
> 1) A testing tool to test eNotarized documents for conformance
>    with the forthcoming OASIS standard; and
> 2) Visual representation marks for eNotarized documents that
>    are standardized across applications.
> 
> The first is critical to application developers - as well as 
> the courts - since there must be a single tool that can be
> referenced in the event there are disputes between two different
> implementations of software which deal with eNotarized documents
> and that produce different results.  The standard OASIS testing
> tool will allow developers to test their software implementations 
> for conformance with the TC's spec BEFORE they release their SW,
> thus ensuring that their software does not produce different 
> results for sample eNotarized documents.
> 
> The second is equally critical - but to end-users and relying
> parties who would appreciate a consistent representation of an
> eNotarized document across applications.  While software may have
> passed the conformance test in #1, if each vendor chooses to
> display the result of verifying an eNotarized document with its
> own icons/representations, it could lead to confusion in the
> industry despite the OASIS standard.
> 
> I would propose that this TC take up these two work-items and 
> create the conformance tool and visual icons so that the value 
> of the OASIS eNotary standard is not diluted.
> 
> To that extent I would also propose that, after the TC has come to 
> an agreement on these work-items, it put out RFP's for the creation
> of these artifacts.  The terms, ownership, licensing, etc. can all
> be worked out in conjunction with OASIS staff (who are copied on
> this e-mail for expediency).
> 
> I would also recommend that, while OASIS can make the conformance
> testing tool freely available to adopters, the visual icons should
> be restricted for use by only OASIS members, and only if they have 
> shown conformance with the tool through an independent testing 
> process.  Not only does this reinforce the value of an OASIS 
> membership, but it protects the "brand" of an OASIS-compliant 
> eNotarized document.  For end-users who will have to deal with 
> eNotarized documents in their software, seeing standardized icons 
> in a consistent manner within eNotarized documents will enhance the 
> value of the standard to the entire industry.
> 
> Thoughts/Reactions?
> 
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php